Jed Worthington
LIT1: Task 2

Situation A:

Our company had an employee whose wife gave birth to twins prematurely. This employee requested leave in order to be with his wife. This particular situation fell under the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993; it states that employers must grant 12 weeks during any 12 month period of time of leave to employees. An employee can qualify for the Family and Medical Leave Act when there is a birth of a child, placement of a child in foster care, adoption, or to care for immediate family members because of health conditions. It can also be used for the employee’s own health reasons. The law states that the employer needs to compensate the employee for any paid leave the company provides to its employees. If the company does not provide paid leave for their employees, then the leave does not need to be paid. In the situation, we followed the FMLA laws by allowing the employee to take a leave. We then brought the employee back to his previous job and rate of pay after his return. The company has no obligation to compensate the employee for his 11 weeks of leave, unless the company provides 11 weeks of paid leave to its employees.

Situation B:

An employee was denied a job based on his age. This particular situation would fall under the Age Discrimination Employment act of 1967. This law states that companies that employ 20 or more employees must not discriminate against any individual from the age 40 years and older. The law dictates that an employer not discriminate those individuals from, hiring, promotions, layoffs, compensation, benefits, job assignments, or trainings. In this incident we promoted a younger employee over an older employee. The younger employee had less experience and received an annual performance review of “adequate." The older employee had more experience and received an annual review of “above average.” In this situation, the company was in violation of the Age Discrimination Employment act of 1967. Each job is not a one size fits all for every employee. The manager might have felt that the younger employee might have been a better fit for the job. In this case, it does not matter how one might feel, only what they can prove. If the skills that the manager liked in the younger employee had been highlighted in his annual performance review and documented, things might be different. As the information stands we are in violation.

Situation C:
An individual was denied employment based on his disability. This particular situation would fall under the American with Disabilities Act, of 1990. This law prohibits discrimination based on disability. The law states that an employer/potential employer with 15 or more employees cannot discriminate against a qualified person with disabilities for the purposes of a job application, hiring, advancement, discharging of employees, workers compensation, job training, and other employment privileges. The law also states that an employer must make reasonable accommodations in regard to the known disability whether mental, or physical, to accommodate the person with disabilities. In this situation, we are forced to ask some critical questions. The first question is if the candidate was truly qualified for the job. The potential employee was told that he was not hired because his employment would create undue hardship on the company. I'm left to assume that the applicant was qualified, because had he not been, that should have been the reason for not being hired. The second question that I need to ask is if the modifications to the elevator would qualify as an unreasonable accommodation. I have determined that the company is in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act because it seems to be only one accommodation that needs to be made. The employee was qualified, and he was told his employment would bring undue hardship to the company. They will now have to prove that lowering the elevator pads 4 inches is an undue hardship. This is a case that without more information will be almost impossible for a company to win.